Tesla's financial standings have climbed out of the red largely due to the state of California's environmental credits, which could add another $250 million to the automaker's bank account.

The state of California has set up a system of Zero Emission Vehicle credits, which aims to push the adoption of electric vehicles by offering federal and state incentives to both automakers and consumers.

Under this system, Tesla can receive about $35,000 - $45,000 extra on each sale of its Model S sedan. Wall Street analysts predict that these credits (which can be sold to automakers that don't produce EVs) could send as much as $250 million to Tesla this year.

This goes to show the importance of clean vehicles to the state. Its Air Resources Board wants electric vehicles to make up 15 percent of new car sales by 2025. Currently, they make up less than 1 percent.

Many automakers have fought California on its strict environmental regulations, saying that they want to create green vehicles on their own terms without being bullied by regulators. However, Tesla has managed to meet California's standards and is benefitting significantly from it.

In fact, these environmental credits are a large reason as to why Tesla will be able to announce a profitable quarter come Wednesday for the first time.

"We are in the air pollution business, not the car business," said Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the Air Resources Board, which has broad control over environmental policy in California. "There is some jealously of Tesla going on here."

Tesla has come a long way to get where it is now. After problems in the past like Model S shipment delays, a run-in with a poor review from The New York Times, and a production delay of the Model X, Tesla managed to get up and dust itself off.

Tesla began shipping 500 Model S' a week in March, exceeding the sales outlook of 4,500 posted in the February shareholder letter.

Tesla is looking to keep that momentum, as well. Tesla CEO Elon Musk has been fighting for a Texas electric vehicle sales bill (House Bill 3351), which would allow distributors and manufacturers of electric vehicles only to sell directly to customers without the use of dealerships. Musk called this bill a matter of "life or death" for Tesla.

Whether or not the OP is correct boils down to how you define pollutants. If you define pollutants as stuff that's directly harmful, then he's pretty close to correct. You seem to be defining it as "zero-emission", which is also reasonable. You defining things differently doesn't make him wrong, though.

If you change the composition of air then you are polluting. All air breathing species rely on the air to provide a certain % of oxygen, hydrogen, etc...When that is changed then it becomes harmful. Anything harmful to the environment that our biological needs requires is considered pollution.So he is right, any emission is pretty much pollution but we are more tolerable towards certain things as it is less harmful to us. We are also much more tolerable on gases that will deteriorate/decay or recycle naturally.

Any definition of pollution I've seen includes something about "harming" (and maybe the word "artificial") - respiration doesn't generally fall into that category.

In fact, it sounds like you're confusing "change" with "pollute". Following your logic, all natural living and non-living processes are "pollution", and the only way to stop pollution would be to somehow stop all change from occurring.

quote: When that is changed then it becomes harmful. Anything harmful to the environment that our biological needs requires is considered pollution.

I quoted my own comment because it seems like you forgot to actually read it.

Let me put it this way for you. If we somehow managed to pump the air to fill it with 10% helium. Helium is not considered a pollutant right now, but in large quantity it is.

Yes all life forms are in a way polluting but they cancel each other out. Carbon dioxide is release from animals while plants and plankton absorb it and release oxygen. If Carbon dioxide production vastly outpace absorption and oxygen production then CO2 would then become a pollution.